Thursday, August 28, 2014

The Real Desecration of Marriage

She was one of the presenters at a "Journey of Faith" class that my wife and I were taking, back when we were looking into becoming Episcopalians.

She told the following story.

When my friends Amy and Bob got married, I made a tapestry for them that had their names "Amy and Bob" on it, in the middle of a heart, signifying their life-long love.  
After their divorce, Amy came out of the closet and announced she was marrying her Lesbian lover, Sue.  She brought me the tapestry.  "Can you pull out Bob's name and weave in Sue's?" she asked.  "I want this to say Amy and Sue, not Amy and Bob."
And I was surprised at my reaction!  I was reluctant to do this!  And I have always thought of myself as a caring liberal!

I turned to her and asked the only question that needed asking.  "If she had said, I'm leaving Bob and marrying Fred.  Will you yank out Bob's name and sew in Fred's?  I want the tapestry to say "Amy and Fred", would you have been at all distressed?"

"Oh, no!" she replied, her eyes beaming, grinning a stupid grin.  "That would not have bothered me at all!"

***

Over at the Ink Desk, where I mirrored my post on The Scandal of Coffee and Donuts, Fr. Matthew Schneider comments ...

AUGUST 24 2014 | BY FR MATTHEW P. SCHNEIDER, LC
I recently tweeted something similar to your whole issue about gay marriage, marriage, courtship et al:

Serial adultery & divorce destroys marriage more than gay marriage.
B4 fighting gay marriage, we need to restore marriage.
 
You can read the ~75 replies at: https://twitter.com/FrMatthewLC/status/502571100354908160

Some of the "inside the beltway" Catholics got offended but unfortunately as I responded later:

If marriage is just "2 people who love each other sexually & want to spend a long time together" denying gays is discrimination.

Exactly.

The desecration of Marriage in this country did not begin with the "gays", nor will it end with them.



6 comments:

Timothy Putnam said...

Hey, why not step on a few more toes?!

It was the wide acceptance of contraceptives that shifted the cultural mentality of marriage from one of self-sacrifice to one of self-gratification.

The root of redefining marriage as "two people who love each other sexually & want to spend a long time together" is the broad acceptance of contraception.

reillywashburn said...

Awesome.

Here's your first dollar in the tip jar.

jvc said...

There's a connection here with the Lying Debate. Stay with me on this.

A lot of evangelical, conservative Catholics seem to be single-issue voters. It's abortion and gay marriage all the time. This is what Pope Francis was talking about (in his unfortunate bumbling manner).

The problem with being a single-issue voter is that the pre-occupation of a single issue tends to cloud one's judgement to the point where he becomes a very weak advocate on that issue.

I think many of the "Lying" advocates tend to be weaker advocates of the pro-life cause. They may cause more harm than good because they fail to see the larger picture that includes their single-issue.

That's also happening with the gay marriage debate. We're so obsessed with gay marriage that we fail to see how infidelity is everywhere among heterosexuals. There was a great article in the magazine First Things about this within the last year.

The single-issue advocates are not helping with this issue and most likely not making any converts on it. It's the perceived hypocrisy that drives our opponents crazy.

ELC said...

"I would like to add that our society was set on this course when it became widely accepted that (1) sex is not properly related to procreation, (2) sex is not properly related to marriage, and (3) marriage is not really a life-long exclusive commitment. IOW, when immoral behavior among heterosexual adults became widely accepted."

Fri. 07/11/03 01:06:09 PM

http://weblog.theviewfromthecore.com/2003_07/ind_002095.html

Shadowfax said...

And now that some prelates are claiming that very few people nowadays are even capable of entering into sacramental marriage (and by their standards, it looks like hardly anybody over the millenia was capable of entering into sacramental marriage--I mean, who really knows what they are getting into on their wedding day?), I sometimes tease my husband with,
"Hey, we might not even really be married! You rascal, you!"

I suspect that attempts to make it easier to get out of marriage by annulment so that the divorced and remarried can receive communion without committing the sin of sacrilege just means that Catholic marriage will mean even less than it ever did before.

Shadowfax said...

"The root of redefining marriage as "two people who love each other sexually & want to spend a long time together" is the broad acceptance of contraception."

I'd widen this out even a bit further--it is the wide acceptance of our control over birth, whether through contracepton or natural means. We no longer have to keep getting pregnant just because we are having regular sex.

That was a game-changer, and I don't see the lid being put back on that Pandora's box. You can't undo knowledge, after all---once you know when you are fertile and that if you don't have sex during that period, you won't get pregnant, well, good luck getting people to keep having a lot of babies.

If some sort of world catastrophe happened tomorrow, and nobody had access to artificial means of birth regulation, you'd just have a lot of women determined not to have sex during fertility--or not to have sex at all (look at the Japanese---they don't even have sex anymore, the whole baby/family thing is seen as such a bother and interference).

That Genie left the bottle a long time ago.